Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, but I and many here miss skylines that say, big city, as I stated. Although your correct for many reasons, there is nothing defining a center city here etc..., and it gets a bit visually monotonous (all the buildings for blocks and blocks are exactly the same height). But it is a good example of continuity and activity... (Great would be debatable, since the people factor into that)

I miss my Terminal Tower!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Re: NYC and Chicago, people do visit them partly for their skylines, but only because they're the best skylines in North America, and some of the best in the world. I don't think any other city in the country is poised to make waves in that business, and that's OK. Can't speak for Chicago, but in NYC, the areas with the tall commercial buildings are generally the least fun, least active, and altogether lamest areas in Manhattan. Same is true in Boston, and probably many other cities. If the goal is building a great city for its residents, I don't see much of a benefit to the tall guys to anyone but sky scraper geeks.

But I don't agree with idea that New York and other land constrained cities are the only areas that "need" skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are built where developers think they can get enough rent/subsidy income to turn a profit off of planning/construction costs. There is no inherent "need" for them anywhere on earth.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not a defence of Jacob's Tower vs Pescht, but just a general observation: I think people very much notice skylines. When you watch any TV show, sporting event, etc set definitely into a given city, they always show the skyline. What's in the background of any local city newscast? The skyline. What's usually on that cities webpage? The skyline. I think that is because it gives a "face" for most cities. And in that respect, is quite important.

That said, I'd rather see Pesht as the benefit to Downtown as a place to be outweighs the Jacobs Tower's benefit to Downtown as a place to look at.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me why a series of 10 - 20 story buildings doesn't factor into the description of a skyline? I understand that tall buildings are certainly visible elements of a skyline, but I would argue that the relatively short Rock Hall receives far more media visibility than does the Key Tower. If these were a series of 2-3 story townhomes, I would understand why they might get lost in our skyline, but 10-20 story buildings filling in some of the skyline gaps seem to me like they would create a denser skyline, and if anything, make our tallest skyscrapers look even taller by providing more scale.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I totally agree that a project like what Stark is proposing will do more for Cleveland than any 1,000 foot skyscraper. I was saying the skyline can give people a perception of the city and perception is very important, especially when the city has the perception Cleveland does Nationally.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Your example of Columbus would come in here. Columbus' relatively tall buildings are not really even that tall as far as a skyscraper goes (I dont believe any really exceeding 28 stories). But the lack of other buildings around them, or visual clutter, gives them a much taller appearance and prominence in the skyline. Look at similar buildings in Cleveland, such as the 5/3 building. It barely even shows up in the skyline (of course dependant on where you are) as is the case with most buildings on e. 9th, looking from the west. Of course 10-20 story buildings in the warehouse district would show up well from the west but not from the east. If those were built in Columbus, they would most certainly show up from every angle. Not much blocking their view.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

why take it right to the gutter pope w/ atlanta? you know very well there are cities with decent skylines and infill. try these on for size: denver (lots of stuff going on)? austin (new tower+ pesht-like infill), charlotte (making strides)? columbus (miranova + the pen tower = holla!)? so dont get ahead of ourselves, its only one building! more importantly, we all know that plot of land has been held for this very purpose for many, many years. its meant to be a beast.

speaking of either/or - wasnt pesht always supposed to be mixed use, but still mostly residential? a jacobs tower with mostly offices of two companies, hotel space and maybe....perhaps a few floors of chi-chi residences does not nesessarily preclude a massive transformative effort like pesht.

fact is stark knows perfectly well that the jacobs public square plot, fcr's scranton peninsula land and wolsteins east bank flats among others are out there, but he chose to speak out before he was ready to act. so everyone is on point now. now if jacobs starts digging dirt for his tower tomorrow i say halleleujah bring it on and let the best man win.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

why take it right to the gutter pope w/ atlanta? you know very well there are cities with decent skylines and infill. try these on for size: denver (lots of stuff going on)? austin (new tower+ pesht-like infill), charlotte (making strides)? columbus (miranova + the pen tower = holla!)? so dont get ahead of ourselves, its only one building! more importantly, we all know that plot of land has been held for this very purpose for many, many years. its meant to be a beast.

speaking of either/or - wasnt pesht always supposed to be mixed use, but still mostly residential? a jacobs tower with mostly offices of two companies, hotel space and maybe....perhaps a few floors of chi-chi residences does not nesessarily preclude a massive transformative effort like pesht.

fact is stark knows perfectly well that the jacobs public square plot, fcr's scranton peninsula land and wolsteins east bank flats among others are out there, but he chose to speak out before he was ready to act. so everyone is on point now. now if jacobs starts digging dirt for his tower tomorrow i say halleleujah bring it on and let the best man win.

wow..all this talk over one building.

Can I refer to the new county building and its lastluster design.Perhaps this would give us hope that the county would change there design and give us a building that has character.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

people actin like this cant be built cuz its cleveland. i bet they said the same thing about key tower and it has what % vacancy rate now?? the class A vacancy rate in downtown was higher than it is now when key tower was built. with companies lookin for new/bigger space, residential, and a hotel a 70-story building could easily be filled. it just takes balls from a developer to build it.

and despite what some of yall say. a skyline does matter and is a sense of civic pride. its actually not the UO geeks that talk about skylines....ive come across lots of people who say "blah blah blah skyline is the best" etc. nobody on here is going to argue that a skyline is the end all of how great a city is but it matters. the general public would probably be more excited over a 70-story tower than a bunch of densely built 10-20 story towers.

this is one building. one location. thats it. so why do people get strung on the concept how a tall building somehow defeats urbanity, street life, and mixed use when one lot isnt going to define all of that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

imy dream is for cleveland to make better use of the water that surrounds and penetrates it...cleveland currently does a piss poor job...just look at the lakefront property misuse west and east of browns stadium/rock hall. same goes for the crooked river. wolstein/stonebridge is a start, but i'd like to see some taller buildings on BOTH sides of the river. anyone else agree? :drunk:

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

CTownsFinest216, I'm very disappointed you've chosen to totally misunderstand us. I would argue that just about everyone who posts here believes in a can-do attitude and believes in this city. Many of these posters were schooled in urban planning, architecture, land use planning and related disciplines. I'm aware that a few of these folks work in those fields.

They understand the difference between style and substance, and what different types of land uses have on the economics and vibrancy of an urban setting.

In the meantime, allow me to suggest a field experiment. At noon on a sunny weekday, go to the front door of Key Tower and count the number of people who walk out. Then, on the next sunny weekday, go to the corner of East 9th and St. Clair and count the number of people who walk out of the front doors of the IMG Building, or the Bond Court Building, or the One Cleveland Center. Then compare the outpouring of people from any one of those buildings vs. that from Key Tower.

Why did I choose the Key Tower vs the other two buildings? What is within a 500-foot walk of Key Tower to pull workers all the way down from their lofty offices to the street? What is within a 500-foot walk of the three shorter towers?

In the absence of Pesht but in the presence of a 1,000-foot tower on Jacobs' Public Square property, what is within a 500-foot walk of that potential tower?

I did a similar planning exercise back in college, and you start to understand the important of context, setting, mixed use, building design, scale, etc etc etc

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

oh kjp back with the either/or again? sheesh. what makes anyone think a long planned jacobs tower means thee end of pesht?

it doesnt. maybe it would be scaled back for awhile re office space, but it neednt be scrapped entirely. unlike the jake tower pesht has a strong residential feature. hell look at the renderings again, or better yet any new residential mixed use in any city these days or yes (gasp) lifestyle mall -- it will look like that. maybe less a taller structure fro awhile if the jake tower goes up.

what we really need to realize it that its likely all three major developments may not happen, may not happen at the same time or may not even happen any time soon.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am a new member of urbanohio, but have been following maydays postings on here as well as his skyscraper page Cleveland project Rundown for some time. Thank you mayday for all the updates. Its nice to share what I find with friends that have moved away from Cleveland to get them excited about coming back. I will be moving into the Avenue District townhomes in November. As a soon to be resident of downtown I would like to add my opinion on what I would like to see happen downtown.

I would very much like to see Jacobs build his 60-70 story building. Such a building would bring a sign of prosperity to our city. So many good things are going on in Cleveland but many people don't know or realize what is happening. (Medical Mart, New Convention Center, East and West side of the Flats, Avenue District, New Lake Front Project, Euclid Corridor, etc) Such a building would be a sign of Cleveland on a comeback. I feel that such a structure would also create a domino effect for other projects and economic investment. It could spark attraction from outside businesses, or more tourism to the city. I also would like to see Stark get enough Leases to start his genius plan for the Warehouse district, which in my opinion is far over due for the area. The Warehouse district is packed every weekend and needs to take advantage of the strong presence from Clevelands are visitors. Both of these projects will give the atmosphere of a liveable downtown, as well as add to our skyline. It seams there are plenty of leases options available in 5 years for both projects to start. With both of these projects I feel it would give the needed boost for the Courthouse Plaza and the Euclid Tower to find funding and begin construction. This would add two more buildings that are 20 plus stories and give us a visable skyline. Also all of these buildings would be a great view from my roof top patio!!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As you can gleam from previous posts in this thread and in the Pesht thread, most people would LOVE to see ALL the projects completed (even thought the proposed Jacobs Tower is still really a mystery). The debate centers around the reality that downtown Cleveland can only support so much new office space, so what form of new development is preferrable given the economic issues. While I would love to see a Tower on PS I personally would prefer to see the parking lots in the Warehouse District disappear.

That said, and not to be a wet blanket, I think you are relying too much on the magically powers of a tall building relative to Cleveland's "comeback". By the way, I personally don't think we need to comeback from any where (over the past 30 years that term has worn thin, both positive and negative).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, you're welcome, and congrats on the new digs! :-)

"It seems there are plenty of leases options available in 5 years for both projects to start."

I guess that's the big question - is there enough demand among enough different companies that both Stark's proposal and a Jacobs tower could be feasible? There are so many variables right now - the biggest being the economy and lending environment, and it's not in prime shape right now.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here's the issue: residential is not likely to be as large of a component as originally envisioned in Stark's project. Residential may be delayed as part of the Flats East Bank project. And I would highly doubt that it will be a component of Jacobs' skyscraper. The reason is that the office market is moving; residential is not. Office leases will drive these projects, at least for the foreseeable future until the mortgage crisis eases nationally and the residential market picks up locally. So if office demand is driving these projects, and two or three of the six companies downtown whose leases are due to expire by 2011 end up in Jacobs' tower, what will be the fate of Stark's and Wolstein's developments? What will happen if one of the large office tenants ends up at North Pointe? What will happen if the county commissioners offers to sell Ameritrust to one of them? And, since the departure of these companies will leave holes in existing office towers, some of those may get at least one of the smaller firms that's considering their relocation options.

Facts are facts. This is what's happening downtown in the residential and office markets. With what's happening in the residential market, it's probably not a great time for Stark or Wolstein to be trying to advance their projects absent the office component. Those two developers are counting on getting pieces of the office pie to help bridge the void in the residential market until that part picks back up again.

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

on the other hand....the real estate market is estimated to begin to rebound in 2009. If these projects start now, granted they would have to be mainly rental, and complete in 2009/2010 - it could be the perfect time to have new units on the market. The issue with building condos right now is due to pre-sale requirements from lenders. If the projects can be rental heavy with the ability convert to condos in the future - i think starting a large project now still could make sense.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As I said at the start of this thread, I really hope that Jacobs considers two "Erieview" size towers instead of one big bang.

OK, here is a request for all you computer know-it-alls - Could you take a couple skyline pictures of Cleveland (maybe one from each direction - N, S, E, W) and insert the Ameritrust monstrosity Musky posted at the beggining of this thread to scale. Maybe that will answer some of the aesthetic concerns posted earlier. I did a quick sketch (pencil and paper) and it seems like it doesn't fit and sort of makes our skyline look worse believe it or not. Also, and this is the killer for me, it dwarfs the TT into obscrurity.

Then do the same thing with maybe a twin tower concept in its place with each tower rising 400 or so feet. It would be appreciated if anyone has the ability and time. I certainly don't have either.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, most of this discussion has been building one at the expense of the other development. But say magically, all three could be built. How cool would a new skyscraper be. I hear the arguments for smaller scale, and for the most part I agree. But if there is one spot in the city that is appropriate for a monster tall building, this is it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It would be cool to have our cake and eat it too, but am I the only one who thinks that the original design is heinous? It looks like a Star Destroyer and the Ren Cen in Detroit collided. If it's going to be the tallest building down there, make it pretty!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

there is no chance the original design would be used today by jacobs. it's woefully outdated. at the very least it would be modified.

as for residential not being a large part of pesht...i could not disagree more kjp, look at those renderings again. also look at any other new infill in any city...it's mostly residential. this is thee current real estate boom, people moving back to downtown urban living. for one prime example, check out san diego these days.

jacobs is an office/hotel tower (definately well ok prob with a couple floors of something residential as its de riguer in any new mixed use large tower, ceo rooms, guest rooms etc., but whatever), otoh pesht is all lower rise mixed use w/ maybe with a few smaller towers if and when possible. total buildout of pesht is also dependent on the port authority move, which seems quite a long way off at the moment.

so it seems that since jacobs owns the land they could move first if they wanted to. certainly stark and wolstein and others are well aware of this.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Note in this massing I posted in the Pesht thread how little residential is being considered for Pesht by Stark. Most of it is office (shown in blue). Stark told me the residential (in red) would come in a later stage of construction when the market improves.

Also, I recall reading an article recently that the residential market has cooled nationwide, but is still ticking along in all but a few places -- New York City being one of them. Anyone else recall the article or can post a link to it?

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Delayed" probably wasn't the right word. Their initial focus is to secure leases from non-residential tenants -- office and hotel. I was told that by someone in the Shaia family. They're the folks who proposed Lighthouse Landing and then reached a joint development agreement with Wolstein for their West 10th Street land. Nancy Lesic, Wolstein's PR person, comfirmed that approach to leasing is Wolstein's initial focus.

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also, I recall reading an article recently that the residential market has cooled nationwide, but is still ticking along in all but a few places -- New York City being one of them. Anyone else recall the article or can post a link to it?

Make that parts of NY. Now that the Foreclosure monster has taken NY by the balls, we're seeing the crunch.

If you look at places like Harlem of Fort Green, Bed Stuy or Williamsburg, which were all given the moniker of the "next hot neighborhoods". Property in those areas has cooled significantly. There are 6 condo developments within 4 blocks of my house, that are having a hard time selling. Two release a large number of units into rentals. Houses in NYC are staying on the market longer than ever before.

I say build the damn tower, if marketed properly and the local real estate community gets on board they could make this Cleveland's finest address. I would love to live in a 70 story skyscraper, hotel, condo, mixed use property.

I've read here that people don't move into the city because the type of housing that young, new people to the region or first time home owners is not available in the city. Here's a way to correct that and market the continued resurgence of the City's core.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So what happens if no new commercial project is approved and these companies in need of expansion to new Class A buildings is unavailable? Couldn't that cause a company like Eaton to packup and leave Cleveland? Then we have another empty building, loss tax income, and loss of jobs.

If you build it they will come. (Does that work?)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, that doesn't work. These projects will be built because companies are looking for the space, not vice-versa. For these companies to have nowhere to go as you suggest, all of these developers would have to decide that they don't want to bother doing a development in Downtown Cleveland. Since there is a chance to make money, and they want to make money, I think that is unlikely.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ciccolmt, I guess I am confused by your use of the language "if no commercial project is approved" language as if there is some governmental approval process (other than the standard ones which every project goes through). Perhaps you are referring to approval in terms of financing. Like X said the developers are courting tenants such as Eaton. If they can make a deal that makes sense, something will get built. And of all the leases (companies) mentioned, I cannot imagine any will be leaving town (in fact hasn't somebody suggested that Eaton has decided against new construction...maybe there landlord decided to give them a great deal they could not pass up at their current digs).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Let's also not forget that Jacobs intentionally emptied the Breuer Tower of tenants to keep rents up in other buildings in town. 70 stories is a lot of floor space. (How full is the BP building, by the way?) If for some reason this tower gets built and attracts several large employers out of other buildings, which existing office tower is going to get the Breuer treatment?

C'mon Stark! I'd much rather see 7 10-story buildings (and all of the potential increase in sidewalk-interaction) than a new 70-story icon on public square.